The Supreme Court of Canada has explained why prosecutors don’t need to prove the exact timing of a criminal offence beyond a reasonable doubt. In a concise 14-paragraph decision, the Court dismissed an appeal in a sexual assault case where the accused had presented an alibi.
The ruling clarifies that an indictment may allege an offence occurred “on or about” a particular date, with timing only becoming an essential issue when it forms part of the offence itself or is crucial to the defence. The Court declined to provide a strict legal test, instead favouring a holistic and contextual approach.
Kyla Lee of Acumen Law in Vancouver, and a former chair of the CBA’s criminal justice section, says the ruling doesn’t really provide much help for courts or lawyers. “Part of why the Supreme Court of Canada hears cases is because they’re of national importance,” she says. “They want to give information to the profession and to judges about how legal tests are going to be applied, but this judgment leaves less predictability than would be desired, and what was being asked for in the arguments.”
Read the full article at National Magazine.
